From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ARM: dts: Update the status of RTC DT node of Exynos5250 SoC to "okay" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 03:40:05 +0900 Message-ID: <52111505.9010207@samsung.com> References: <1376488710-12124-1-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> <1376488710-12124-3-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> <2856422.z0LmRpN0Wg@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:58431 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753076Ab3HRSkJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:40:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2856422.z0LmRpN0Wg@flatron> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Tushar Behera , Vikas Sajjan , linux-samsung-soc , Kukjin Kim , Patch Tracking , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Doug Anderson , devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 08/15/13 17:59, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Tushar, > [...] >>> + status = "okay"; >>> >>> }; >> >> Sometime back we had a discussion on this, the decision was to enable >> it in respective boards. > > This is not entirely true. > > According to ePAPR, chapter 2.3.4, the status property has a well defined > meaning and it should be set to "disabled" when "the device is not > presently operational, but it might become operational in the future (for > example, something is not plugged in, or switched off)". > So in my understanding, you mean using "okay" is wrong and only "disabled" is used? and in board dt file? Already there are too many "okay"... > This means that unless setup of the device is missing something (e.g. > board-specific properties, like regulators or pin config) or there is a > valid technical reason for disabling the device by default (e.g. it needs > certain SoC pins to be properly connected to something), then such device > should be "okay", because it is operational. > >> Also if we are going ahead with this, we would need to remove the >> corresponding status statements from board files. > > Yes, this is true. > According to above, probably we should add "disabled" in board dt file? If I'm wrong, correct me. (+ dt ml) Anyway, I'm not sure how to use 'okay' and 'disabled' for status... I think, every hardware information should be defined in SoC dt file and maybe some of them could be set disabled or okay in each board dt file... Any suggestions? Thanks, Kukjin